ballast degradation and fouling
Post on 14-Apr-2017
86 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BALLAST DEGRADATION AND FOULING:THE APPLICATION OF GROUND PENETRATING RADAR MONITORING
BACKGROUND
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
THE TRACK STRUCTURE – BALLAST TRACK
o
o
o
o
o
o
LOAD TRANSFER AND DISTRIBUTIONo
o
o
o
o
o
Typical wheel load distribution into the track structure (Selig and Waters, 1992, p2,21
BALLAST
o
o
o
o
o
Grading requirement (ARTC Ltd., 2007)
BALLAST DEGRADATION AND FOULING o
o
o
o
o
TRADITIONAL BALLAST MONITORING AND TESTING
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR (GPR)
o
o
o
o
o
o
BALLAST DEGRADATION MANAGEMENT
o
o
o
o
o
METHOD OF INVESTIGATIVE ANALYSIS
1. Isolate sections for investigation
2. Gather relevant information and datao GPR Data (2011 and 2015)o Maintenance history (2011- present)o Relevant section information
3. Compare:o maintenance history to past GPR data to determine whether the
sections with high fouling identified were being managed. o past and present GPR data, identifying changes to track
condition over the four-year period.
4. Investigate rate of contamination
PRESENTATION OF GPR DATA
Ballast Fouling (Percentage Void Contamination - GPR PVC)
PVC
CategoryDescription PVC range (%)
6 Clean 0 to <10
5 Moderately Clean 10 to <20
4Moderately
Fouled 20 to <30
3 Fouled 30 to <40
2 Highly Fouled 40 to <60
1Severely fouled >=60
0 Unavailable n/a
ACQUISITION OF MAINTENANCE HISTORY
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – MAINTENANCE
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS – BALLAST AND FOULING VOLUMES
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
0.000 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000
Vo
lum
e (m
^3)
Chainage (km)
2011 Ballast Volume: Total against Fouled, Main Line
total volume per 5m
volume fouling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.000000 1.000000 2.000000 3.000000 4.000000 5.000000 6.000000
volu
me
(m^3
)
Chainage (km)
2015 Ballast Volume: Total against Fouled, Main Line
total folume per 5m
volume fouled
0.000
2.000
4.000
6.000
8.000
10.000
12.000
14.000
16.000
18.000
20.000
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
Axi
s Ti
tle
Chainage
2011 Ballast Volume: Total against Fouled, Suban Line
total volume per 5m
volume fouling
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
Vo
lum
e (m
^3)
Chainage
2015 Ballast Volume: Total against Fouled, Suban Line
total volume per 5m
volume fowling
BRIDGEBRIDGE
BRIDGEBRIDGE PLATFORM LEVEL
CROSSING
RATES OF CONTAMINATION
Section Distribution of Data Section Rate
Approximation
Approximate
PVC/1000MGT
3 Linear Mean 0.114%
4 Linear Mean 0.334%
5 Non-Linear Median 2.536%
6 Linear Mean 1.638%
Section Traffic Axel Load
(t)
Top Speed (km/h) Mega Gross Tonnage
2011 – 2015
3. Passenger,
Freight
20 80 85931.2
4. Passenger,
Freight
20 80 136811
5. Passenger 15.75 80 28152.71
6. Passenger 15.75 80 28152.71
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
o
o
o
REFERANCE LIST
Australian rail Corporation Ltd. (2007). Engineering (Track and Civil) Code of Practice , Ballast-Section 4 (27) Retrieved from https://www.artc.com.au/
Selig, E. T., & Waters, J. M. (1992). Track Geotechnology and Substructure Management. Melbourne, VIC: Technology Development and Application Committee on behalf of the Railways of Australia.
top related